Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 277 SW2D 627 - State v. Baker

State v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

1955

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
2
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Sims v. State (1990), State v. Hale (1963)

35 state decisions

1301955196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on State v. Bayless · State v. Wright · State v. Sapp · State v. Bidstrup · State v. Murphy

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “As noted, an accident instruction was given but defendant contends he also was entitled to a self-defense instruction ... However, by the established law of this state, a defendant alone cannot provide the basis for such inconsistent defenses Under comparable facts ... in State v. Baker, Mo., 277 S.W.2d 627 , . . . the court held, loe. cit. 629-630: “In the instant case, defendant relies upon his own testimony as the basis for the inconsistent defenses. This cannot be permitted. His positive testimony that the shooting was accidental and unintentional would clearly negative any possible inference of self-defense based upon other facts appearing in his testimony. In this situation, it follows that there was no substantial evidence upon which a self-defense instruction could have been based.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he defenses of self-defense and accident are inconsistent[,] [i]f proved by proper evidence, a defendant is entitled to have inconsistent defenses submitted to a jury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.